Case law

Walker v. Goodwin (In Re Meadows)

39 B.R. 538 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 1, 1984

Having established that the Purchase Agreement setting forth conditions precedent to be satisfied prior to consummation of the buy-sell agreement was clearly executory, the trustee had the power granted by 11 U.S.C. § 365 … Personal property in issue failed to become part of debtors’ estate in *541 bankruptcy and is immune to any claim asserted against this property by the trustee.

In re Christie

159 B.R. 780 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 24, 1993

This valuation is limited to the purpose of this hearing. .It was not discussed by either side whether the Property qualifies as a rural homestead. … Though the Court questions the Property’s eligibility to qualify as a rural homestead, a ruling regarding this issue is reserved for another day. .

In Re Quackenbush

339 B.R. 845 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 2006

For purposes of this subdivision, all trusts, custodial accounts, annuities, insurance contracts, monies, assets or interests established as part of, and all payments from, either any trust or plan, which is qualified as … Once liquidated, the proceeds are clearly “cash” and the Debtor may claim exempt as much as is allowed by the statute. Id.

In re Feliciano

487 B.R. 47 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 20, 2013

Although not articulated clearly, the debtors appear to be arguing that their earlier occupancy of the Yauco property coupled with their ongoing intention to return there should equate with use for the purposes of satisfying … If a residence is uninhabitable it cannot be “used” for purposes of qualifying for the federal exemption.

In Re Witwer

93 Daily Journal DAR 455 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Dec 1, 1992

The Court held that the plain language of the Code and ERISA established that an anti-alienation provision in a qualified pension plan constitutes a restriction enforceable under “applicable nonbankruptcy law” for purposes … Thus, the remedial scheme established by Title I is not necessary for the protection of a self-employed Debtor.

In Re Stevens

177 B.R. 619 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 24, 1995

(The nonmov-ant may not rely on the allegations or denials in its pleadings to establish a genuine issue of fact, but must come forward with an affirmative showing of evidence). … It is clearly the better course for debtors to list all property in which they have an interest, even though it may not be property of the estate.

In Re Delmoe

365 B.R. 124 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2007

However, that language was contained in the Will which was crafted in 1997 and which did not establish or contemplate a trust. … Clearly, the Trust payments to Mrs. Delmoe, do not qualify as spousal or child *130 support. The question becomes, do they qualify as an allowance or maintenance?

In Re Price

143 B.R. 190 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 15, 1992

The purpose and length of the conversation and the person called or calling must be clearly set forth in the application. Id. … REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES The Applicant bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to certain expenses.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance v. Raisley (In Re Raisley)

287 B.R. 639 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2003

Moreover, it is questionable whether the arbitration decision and award of June 26, 2001, qualifies as a judgment of any sort. … Even if it has established them, Commonwealth cannot prevail because the evidence clearly indicates that it did not rely at all, let alone justifiably, on debtors’ response to paragraph 5 of the above affidavit.

Firstar Bank Burlington, N.A. v. Stark Agricultural Services, Inc. (In Re Kevin W. Emerick Farms, Inc.)

201 B.R. 790 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 1996

In the aforementioned cases, no singular document qualified as a security agreement. … Assuming that the secured creditor can establish the existence of a security interest in the property acquired by the transferee, the last sentence of section 9-402(7) clearly does not operate to perfect the security interest

Ferrari v. Barclays Business Credit, Inc. (In Re Morse Tool, Inc.)

108 B.R. 389 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 22, 1989

The existence of such creditors is established and uncontroverted. Therefore, I conclude that the Trustee has standing to proceed under sections 5 and 7 of G.L. c. 109A. … Tabor Court Realty Corp., 803 F.2d 1288 , 1297 and notes 2 and 3 (3rd Cir.1986) (“The application of fraudulent conveyance law [the UFCA] to certain leveraged buy-outs is not clearly bad public policy.”

In Re Butcher

38 B.R. 796 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 4, 1984

The trustee clearly does not seek any disclosure of events occurring before the grand jury. … Further, the debtor’s attorneys are quite competent; they should be able to establish taint where it does exist.

In Re Thompson

396 B.R. 5 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2008

The record establishes that the debtor and his wife Heather A. Thompson filed a Form 1040A U.S. … Again, the debtor’s interest in the subject payment is clearly property of his bankruptcy estate, and the sole question before the court is the extent of that interest.

In Re McMonagle

30 B.R. 899 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota · Jun 3, 1983

Disability benefits qualify as regular income. In re Dawson, 4 C.B.C.2d 1234, 13 B.R. 107 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Ala. 1981). Social security benefits also qualify. … Nor does this computation include debts which are clearly those of the debtor Company which have been discharged in a separate Chapter 7 proceeding.

Adams v. Adams (In Re Adams)

241 B.R. 880 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 1999

In this case, however, there is absolutely no doubt that the Plaintiff has met this burden as the facts of this case clearly shows that on November 18, 1998, the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, through an entry of divorce … It should be noted for the record that the attorney representing the Defendant in the Parties’ divorce action never actually prepared the qualified domestic relations order as required by the state court.

In Re Atallah

95 B.R. 910 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1989

In addition, even if ERISA “qualification” would exempt a retirement plan trust fund from property of the estate, it has not been established on the present record that the Debtor’s IRAs are so qualified. … The assets of a Keogh plan, in contrast, are clearly assets of the estate.

In re Anderson

496 B.R. 812 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 26, 2013

No property can be exempted (and thereby immunized), however, unless it first falls within the bankruptcy estate. … In 1985, Florida amended its homestead law such that the condominium, which had not previously qualified for a homestead exemption, became eligible for an exemption.

Matter of Hill

5 B.R. 79 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 5, 1980

There was no state court finding or determination in the antitrust-litigation so no established offset. … Cargill, Incorporated is clearly the holder of a claim against each of the Hills in an amount clearly in excess of the $5,000.00 requirement of 11 U.S.C. Section 303 (b).

Ray v. Oregon Ex Rel. Construction Contractors Board (In Re Ray)

355 B.R. 253 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2006

The movant has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). … Accordingly, trial will be held regarding damages, and the defense of qualified immunity by Defendants Smith and Harkins which was alluded to in Defendants’ memo in support.

In Re Cespedes

393 B.R. 403 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 8, 2008

The court found that it was not, because the assessment was made “whenever an early withdrawal is made from a qualified pension plan, regardless of when the plan was established” and the “penalty is a flat rate penalty bearing … The tax resulting from the inclusion of the withdrawn amount in income is clearly a tax.